Tuomo Valkonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...]
> Actually, it's not so much about the size of the screen. I don't find > 19" 4:3 offers anything over 17" 4:3 at the same resolution, or even > a slightly bigger resolution (e.g. 1600x1200 vs. 1280x1024... which would > be more of an enhancement on a 17" screen than between 19" and 17", but not > much of enhancement in either case, as both resolutions are still so poor). Sure, by "size" I really mean in pixels. I'm constrained by company policy to use TFTs (we decided that for reasons which probably aren't so valid any more, so possibly I could argue against that), so that limits my choices. I'm disappointed I can't get the same kind of resolution on a desktop screen that is available on laptops, but I imagine the costs (environmental and other) even out (physically bigger screens probably don't cost much more than smaller ones; it probably depends more on the number of pixels). > It's more about the shape. There's horizontally a bit of space left in > the field of vision after a 4:3 screen, that a widescreen display should > fill. You can comfortably fit two A4 papers on a widescreen display, > wasting less resources than multihead, that normally will have a lot > of screen space outside your field of vision. Quite true, although I'm not so confident about the relative costs. Certainly I don't feel that much advantage in having two screens---a single one with a similar number of pixels would do just as well (especially with ion). I guess if ion regards my existing two screens as one big one that won't be too bad; it would be slightly annoying on the occasions where I want to make some application full-screen, though.
